2.2 Life Course Theory: Farrington’s theory is a life-course theory as it is not merely interested in an individual’s life at one stage in time, but views the individual from their past, present and future and gains understanding into criminality by studying the course an individual’s life takes and what factors influence the course of development of the criminal or antisocial behaviour as well as the eventual desistence of this behaviour. In its simplest sense the life course may be defined as the “duration of a person’s existence” (Riley, 1986). It is within the individual’s life course that he/she has interconnected trajectories, an individual’s criminal career could be one of their trajectories and it is influenced by and influences other trajectories within the person’s existence. 2
2.3 Antisocial Development: Since delinquent development is linked to antisocial development, Farrington states (2003), it is not only important to establish the prevalence of antisocial behaviour but also key features of antisocial careers such as age of onset, the probability of persistence after onset, the duration of antisocial behaviour, and the age of desistence. The antisocial syndrome has been linked to a very early onset. According to Robins (1978), most boys who eventually developed antisocial personality disorder shows signs of conduct disorder as soon as they begun attending school (discussed later).
2.4 Criminal Career: Through studying the life course of delinquents Farrington notes that it is only 5-6% of offenders that account for 50-60% of crimes, and high rate offenders begin criminal careers early and continue them for years. A criminal career can be defined as “the longitudinal sequence of crimes committed by an individual offender (Blumstein et al, 1986) or an individuals extended involvement in criminality for a significant episode of the life span.
3
3. FARRINGTON’S THEORY OF DELINQUENT DEVELOPMENT
As a result of this ground breaking study and many more that followed Farrington (1996), was able to catalogue the major classes of variables shown to be important in influencing the pathways developing children follow towards the emergence of offending behaviour.
- Prenatal and perinatal factors: child’s health and influences on it both before and after birth
- Hyperactivity and Impulsivity: these elements of difficult temperament pose a challenge to parents and are linked to poor academic performance
- Parental Supervision: including discipline and attitudes to child rearing
- Broken Homes: when associated with familial stress and emotional distress
- Parental criminality: of fathers, both parents and siblings
- Large family size: this reduces parental attention for each child an may increase conflict
- Socio-economic Deprivation and the pressures this exerts on families
- Below-average intelligence and educational attainment which in turn reduces the chance of success defined conventionally through employment and income
- Peer influences including both attitudes and behaviour
- School influences: the way a school is run and the school ethos
- Community influences: including opportunity to commit crime and neighbourhood environments
- Situational variables: the combination of people present and the interactions between them (adapted from McGuire, 2004). 4
3.1 Biological Influences
Biological influences are seen to be the first causes of delinquency (but by no means the worst). All behaviour including delinquency is affected in some parts by biological factors. Certain brain functioning can have an effect on aggression including lowered serotonin levels as this increases the likelihood of aggressive behaviour which is often associated with delinquent behaviour. Other biological process come into play in delinquency too and Raine (1993), found that delinquents tend to have a lower heart rate and lower skin response, how this affects delinquency is unknown but it does provide insight into the biological origins of delinquent behaviour.
Poor cognitive development as well as lower IQ levels have also been found to be associated with delinquency, Moffit (1993) notes that even mild neuropsychological deficits present at birth can snowball into serious behavioural problems by affecting an infants temperament, these deficits can affect children’s control of behaviours such as language, aggression, oppositional behaviours and attention and hyperactivity (discussed further in psychological factors).
Often these biological predictors of behaviour may not be the main factors in developing delinquent behaviours, but when likened with social factors the likelihood of delinquency is increased. Other biological influences that may affect delinquent behaviour include but are not limited to low birth weight, parental drug abuse while pregnant, complications at birth, lack of maternal bonding, hormones (testosterone) and head injuries. 5
“Pregnancy and birth complications are risks for Central Nervous System damage resulting in neurological and neuropsychological deficits that can lead to persistent and violent offending, these complications are not always directly related to violence, but are related primarily when combined with social risks such as maternal rejection, low socio- economic standards (SES) or family instability (Farrington & Coid, 2003). If a child is born with a neuropsychological deficit, into a low SES household, he/she may not get the necessary care, the mother in turn may reject the child or not bond with the child as the child is not responsive to the mother. These factors increase the likelihood of the child developing delinquent tendencies and is often referred to as the stress-diathesis model, where a person is predisposed biologically to certain mental problems and they are set off by environmental stressors.
3.2 Family Factors
The first and most important socialization we do is within our family. It is within families that we learn behaviours, outcomes of behaviours and consequences of certain behaviours. Family factors are therefore seen as one of the most important predictors in delinquent behaviours and various factors within the family unit all contribute to, or prevent the development of delinquent behaviours. Loeber (1990), notes that factors in the family are among the best predictors in later delinquency in offspring.
6
3.2.1 Parenting
Inadequate parenting practices are again powerful predictors of delinquency. According to Farrington’s Cambridge study in Delinquent Development (1984), the boys who experienced extremes of poor parenting, harsh discipline and low family income were overrepresented among the most persistent offenders.
Among the most significant parenting risks are:
- Poor parental supervision
- Harsh or erratic discipline
- Parental conflict
- Separation from biological parents
- Having antisocial parents
Poor parental supervision allows for a child to do as he pleases as he has no boundaries and parents are not involved enough to teach a child right from wrong, also delinquent behaviour may be a way of extracting attention from parents. The practicing of harsh or erratic discipline again presents a problem with boundaries, when parents only punish their children depending on their mood the child is in a constant state of flux and cannot discern right from wrong as one day he may exhibit a behaviour and get away with it and the next day be punished for it. This will ultimately lead a child to push the boundaries to test what he/she may get away with. Farrington found that antisocial parents tend to select antisocial partners and these antisocial parents often exhibit increased levels of conflict, offer poor parental supervision and harsh and erratic punishment. 7
These high levels of conflict amongst the family are also associated with the gradual development of aggression as a child learns how to socialize and deal with situations from their parents. If their parents often use aggressive tactics when interacting with each other and their children, the child learns to deal with any number of feelings aggressively. This is consistent with the social learning theory of Albert Bandura, and is a combination of both direct and vicarious modeling. A child learns from their parents how to deal with situations often using aggressive tactics displayed by both parents. Moffit (1993) argued that when a child’s vulnerability is compounded with such negative family conditions, life-course persistent offending is most likely (cited in Sampson & Laub, 2005).
3.2.2 Child Abuse
In numerous studies conducted by Farrington (2002), clear links were found between child abuse, neglect and later emergence of delinquency in general and of violent offending in particular. Once again this often boils down to learning and modeling, if a parent uses violent and abusive tactics to control their children, the children will view these as effective ways of dealing with conflict. Also noteworthy here is the Cycle of violence as it is often the most abused children that become abusers themselves. If a child only learns aggressive tactics he/she has no alternative emotional responses to situations.
8
3.2.3 Social Deprivation and low Socio-economic Status
Social deprivation, low SES households, poor housing and poor access to local amenities all add to family stress. Delinquency has been linked to families that are stressed. The stress of having no access to decent education, jobs, housing and social support creates an enduring mood within the household that puts everyone under pressure. “numerous socio-economic factors predict a child’s later antisocial behaviour, including low family income, large family size, poor housing, a teenage mother, dependence on welfare benefits, and unemployed parents. For example in the Cambridge Study, low family income, large family size and low socio-economic status, were important childhood predictors of chronic offending and antisocial personality at age 32 (Farrington, 2000, cited in McGuire, 2004).
3.3 Psychological Predictors
Psychological disorders in children such as Conduct Disorder (CD), Oppositional defiant Disorder (ODD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)contribute to the eventual development of Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) in adults and the presence of APD in adults is a strong predictor of criminal engagement. “Types of behaviours involved in APD include property crimes such as burglary, violent crimes, drug use, heavy drinking, drunk or reckless driving, sexual promiscuity, spouse or partner abuse, child abuse or neglect, repeated lying or conning” (Farrington & Gunn, 1985). Personality features of this disorder also include, impulsiveness, lack of planning, selfishness, lack of remorse or guilt feelings, low frustration tolerance and high aggressiveness. These are all personality traits often associated with delinquency. 9
The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines Conduct Disorder as “a general psychiatric classification encompassing a variety of behaviour patterns in which the person affected repetitively and persistently violates the rights, privileges and privacy of others” and defines Oppositional Defiant Disorder as a developmental disorder marked by defiant, hostile and negativistic behaviour…” (2001).
Children with CD, ODD and ADHD are all more likely to be involved in delinquent behaviour. Hyperactivity in children characterized by fidgety, restlessness, boredom, inability to sit still, inability to pay attention to social cues, lack of concentration is a good predictor of later delinquent behaviour. Usually children with ADHD and specifically Hyperactivity symptoms are easily bored and thrill seekers therefore often engage in activities impulsively without thinking through consequences. “Motor restlessness as rated by kindergarten teachers, was a better predictor of delinquency between ages 10 and 13 than lack of pro-social behaviour and low anxiety” (Farrington, 2004).
3.4 Peer Group Influences
Peer group influences are a much later predictor in delinquency and are more often preceded by biological, family and psychological influences. It is sometimes hard to determine how much peer influences play a part in delinquency, whether peers are able to truly pressure individuals into delinquent deeds or whether ‘birds of a feather flock together’. In the Cambridge Study, 75% of chronic offenders had highly delinquent friends at age 14 (Farrington, 2003). 10
Various factors are involved in peer delinquent behaviours and these include but are not limited to peer pressure, allegiance to a delinquent peer group and fellow peer delinquent behaviour. If a child only socialized and associates within a delinquent peer group the delinquent involvement may become the norm. Peer delinquency though does not exist on its own and is often compounded by low academic achievement, low SES factors, environmental influences, biological factors and family situations. So although peer influences on their own do not seem to determine the likelihood of delinquent behaviour, the climate in which these children grow up does have an effect and it is often these types of children that form peer groups. Interestingly though to note is that withdrawal from a delinquent peer group has an important influence on desistence in delinquent youths and this perhaps shows the weight of influence a peer group has on an individual. Child Delinquents seldom act alone and having accomplices in their delinquent behaviour makes them more likely to display such behaviours.
3.5 Social, School and Community Factors
“Delinquents, disproportionately attend high delinquency rate schools, which have high levels of distrust between teachers and students, and unclear and inconsistently enforced rules” (Graham, 1988. cited in Farrington, 2003). It is unclear as to the effect a school will have on delinquent behaviour. If a school has a high delinquency rate, then the chances of one interacting with delinquents is increased, but as mentioned previously although peers do play a part in delinquent and antisocial behaviour it is by no means a singular and most powerful predictor. 11
What may be more of a factor than school is the community in which the school serves and the social factors as well as economic factors that affect the ethos and general practices of the schools, staff and pupils. Schools may play a part in fostering a delinquent environment by not being strict enough or being inconsistent and not caring much about the welfare of the children in and out of school. Children who do not bond to school or have low academic aspirations, and where schools are poorly organized and run, children do not develop ties to the school and are more likely to be influenced by peers than by the school. But the social setting of the school seems to play a more important role, the schools in the working class neighbourhoods, where unemployment and low SES factors are prevalent are the schools with the highest delinquency rates. Offenders disproportionately live in inner-city areas characterized by physical deterioration, neighbourhood disorganization, and high residential mobility (Shaw and McKay, 1969, cited in Farrington, 2003).
Communities where amenities are not readily available, like social care, health care, youth centers and after school care create a stressful environment for the parent, children are not adequately cared for and generally spend more time outside on the streets in boredom than at home. There `are weak social control networks that allow criminal activity to go unmonitored. Here they are exposed at young ages to various forms of delinquency by older boys and may become part of gangs.
12
4. SUMMARY
Perhaps the most appealing component of Farrington’s theory is that it does not study each predictor of delinquency separately, he acknowledges that these factors do not exist in a vacuum and all these factors impact on each other and are interrelated with each other in an ecosystemic way. One cannot view the impact the family has on antisocial and delinquent individuals without looking at the biological factors as well as the society in which the family functions. If there is a neurological disorder present at birth, it may influence the chances of delinquent behaviour more if the child is bought up in a low SES community, in a family that lacks cohesion and stability. The child will then not learn to socialize at home and when he goes to school will fall into the wrong crowd, exasperating the likelihood of delinquency occurring.
5. CONCLUSION
Farrington’s Theory of Delinquent Development is highly applicable to criminology today. As theories within the social sciences become more and more advanced they become circular and the understanding now is that things are not always linear, cause and effect and singular. It is not one single factor that will determine a person’s likelihood of developing a criminal career but rather multiple factors that play a part from birth through the fundamental teenage years and beyond.
Farrington’s theory enables criminologists to view the criminal as a whole with a present, past and future, not just by the crime they committed. This is of great importance when trying to reform a criminal, help them understand their behaviour and to help them change their behaviour and their actions. Farrington’s theory also allows for preventative measures to take place before the development of delinquency in certain ‘high risk’ individuals. These protective factors can be used as interventions in schools, communities and homes where the risk factors are prevalent. Since he has defined these risk factors it is easier to stage interventions as they arise and hopefully change the possible path of a career criminal.
Bibliography:
Benson, M.L. 2001 Crime and the Life-Course. University of Cincinatti:USA
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J & Farrington, D.P. 1986. Criminal Career Research. It’s
Value for Criminology. Criminology 26:1-35
Farrington, D.P. 1984. Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Inter-university
Consortuim:USA
Farrington, D.P. & Gunn, J. 1985. Aggression and Dangerousness. John Wiley & Sons:
United Kingdom
Farrington, D.P & Coid, J.W. 2003 Early Prevention of Adult Antisocial Behaviour.
Cambridge University Press: United Kingdom
McGuire, M. 2004. Understanding Psychology and Crime. McGraw-Hill: USA
Moffit, T.E. 1993. Adolescence – Limited and Life Course – Persistent Antisocial
Behaviour. A Developmental Taxonomy. Psychological Review 100:674-701
Robins, L.N. 1978. Etiological Implications in Studies of childhood Histories
Relating to Anti-social Personalities. Raven Press: New York
Sampson, R.J & Laub, J.H. 2003 A Life-Course View of the Development of Crime
The ANNALS of the American Academy: USA
Siegal, L. 2004. Criminology: Theories, Patterns & Typologies, 8e.
Wadsworth and Thompson:USA
